×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Uri Geller Accused of Bending Copyright Law

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the more-pliable-than-spoons dept.

Censorship 273

JagsLive writes in with a Fox News report about Uri Geller's apparently playing fast and loose with copyright law in order to silence his detractors. "'All it takes is a single e-mail to completely censor someone on the Internet,' said Jason Schultz, a lawyer for the online civil rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing Geller over an unflattering clip posted on YouTube for which he claimed a copyright ownership."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819685)

Looks like he got to /. too!

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (1, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819731)

> Looks like he got to /. too!

There is no spoon.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819873)

There is no spoon.


There is no copyright law.

Dupe (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819699)

I think this is a dupe of a story from a few weeks ago [slashdot.org] but I read them both.

Nothing's wrong with entertaining people. But suing people over it is just being a fucktard. I read both articles, nothing's changed, he's still a fucktard. Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Re:Dupe (4, Funny)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819885)

Hey, give Geller a break. At least that huckster can now claim to have bent *something* with his mind and avoid the wrath of The Amazing Randi!! Oh, wait... what?

oh geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819703)

There's a team of online bloggers trying to debunk a magician? Don't they have anything better to do? Come on, some people want to believe in magic, let them. Everyone else knows it's all slight of hand.

Re:oh geez (1, Interesting)

Babbster (107076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819917)

Indeed, let's let people have all their new, demonstrably false religions so that maybe in a thousand or so years we can have yet more groups of irrational zealots doing violence on unbelievers. Ignorance isn't a good thing, whether it's in you, your next-door neighbor or some poor douchebag on the other side of the planet.

Re:oh geez (5, Insightful)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819919)

The difference is that true magicians admit they're illusionists. Part of the contract with their audience is that they will fool them and that the audience will try to figure out their tricks. Geller does not claim to be a magician. He claims to actually do what he appears to be doing with the power of his mind.

Geller - biggest douche in universe? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820051)

It's funny. Some "psychics" genuinely seem to believe in their own "powers", apparently mistaking intuition and cold reading skills for ESP. But Geller is different. Not only is he a fraud, he knows he's a fraud. If Geller really believed in his "powers", he'd be trying to demonstrate them in laboratory conditions, if only to embarrass James Randi. But he doesn't believe in his "ability", so he lies and sues people, and thanks to his attempted censorship of this expose, more and more people have learned about his deceit.

What a sad way to live your life. All your achievements are fabrications, and you know that it's only a matter of time before even your most deranged fans realise they've been tricked. Where do you go from there? What are the job options for a notoriously fraudulent spoon bender?

Re:Geller - biggest douche in universe? (1)

DGolden (17848) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820125)

What are the job options for a notoriously fraudulent spoon bender?
Probably a lucrative book contract and endless daytime TV talk-show appearances, cameo roles in films, and so on. At least these days...

Re:oh geez (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820205)

He's a genuine magician alright. If you're taken in by his "magic", your wallet disappears. What's the bet the money doesn't actually disappear though but ends up contributing to Uri's lifestyle.

Re:oh geez (4, Insightful)

byronf (649750) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819983)

There's a team of online bloggers trying to debunk a magician? Don't they have anything better to do? Come on, some people want to believe in magic, let them. Everyone else knows it's all slight of hand.
Some people also want to believe that that they can make millions from helping out an exiled Nigerian dissident through email. Everyone else knows it's a scam.

Geller does not claim to be a magician, he claims to actually posses mental powers. While many of us know this is silly, many people believe it, and are victimized because of it.

Re:oh geez (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820109)

While many of us know this is silly, many people believe it, and are victimized because of it.

They are victims of their own faith. It doesn't matter who the huckster is. Just like people who buy from spammers are victims of nothing more than their own greed. They get no sympathy from me.

Re:oh geez (4, Insightful)

linguizic (806996) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820193)

Dude, get off your high horse. Everyone comes in to this world knowing exactly jack and shit. All a brain is is some tissue on the end of a stick, once I realized that I found that I have nothing but sympathy for every creature who has to figure out this world with only that as their tool.

Re:oh geez (2, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820305)

The problem is that most people DON'T try to figure out this world with their brain. They look around themselves and find the world is a confusing place, so they don't think about it - they refuse to think analytically about anything, they just develop through trial-and-error a set of reactions to various situations that gets them through almost anything. Then they cruise through life, without a reasoned or complete worldview, just waiting for the weekends so they can get drunk and think even less.

Re:oh geez (3, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820569)

The problem is that most people DON'T try to figure out this world with their brain. They look around themselves and find the world is a confusing place, so they don't think about it - they refuse to think analytically about anything, they just develop through trial-and-error a set of reactions to various situations that gets them through almost anything.

Ooh, I was almost with you up until that part.

Most people don't refuse to think analytically. They've just never learned, and their life experiences have not yet shown them the value of acquiring that skill. (Public schools tend to do that.)

Assuming a condescending tone about the Great Unwashed shows, if anything, a lack of analytic thought about the factors that lead to an individual's ability for rational thought, or at least a lack of applying that thought to one's own life. While there are certainly some people (and, in my experience, a terribly small few) who have the ability for reasoned, analytic thought and actually refuse to use it when it would benefit themselves and others, they are vastly outnumbered by people who see no value in that ability which they lack, and may never have the experiences which lead individuals to see that value. Why condemn another based on the intelligence with which fate has bestowed them?

Re:oh geez (3, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820819)

I don't think refuse is too strong a word at all. Most people aren't presented with an actual choice to think or not, but when they are they usually do actively refuse. Example: At work just a few days ago I got drawn into a political/religious discussion with a few people of probably average intelligence, and when two of them said they "didn't believe" in evolution simply because they didn't think we evolved from apes, we had quite a discussion about it. I tried several ways to break it down and figure out which part of the theory they didn't believe, or why they didn't believe it, or whether they distrusted the scientific method in general, and every time both of them very carefully avoided thinking about my points or explaining their position - every time they came to a point where a stock answer they'd read somewhere or heard in a sermon failed they brought it back to "well, I just don't think we came from apes, it's my belief."

I went to Catholic school for 13 years, and several times per day we were reminded of the mysteries of the Trinity and whatnot that we couldn't understand, so we weren't to try. We learned about all the "heretics" who managed to formulate the Church's teachings into something coherent and were sentenced to an eternity in hell. I still hear those things at church every week. This is the religion of a sixth of the world's population.

50% of the population has above-average intelligence. There aren't many people who are genuinely incapable of understanding the world, but there are many who don't bother to try.

Re:oh geez (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820807)

And why does this bother you? You and all other slashdotters can sit there in your almighty knowing worlds and look down on the common man who believes in religion, magic or whatever.

Stop trying to change people.

Re:oh geez (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820863)

Individual acts of stupidity and ignorance don't hurt, but collectively they do. You're right that I shouldn't care that a single person believes in magic or religion, but I do care if everyone does. Think globally, act locally.

And I don't change people. I explain myself; they choose to change if they wish.

Re:oh geez (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820201)

And when the huckster is a politician, we all become the victims. Promoting critical thought matters, even if the individual examples can sometimes seem trivial.

Re:oh geez (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820327)

Promoting critical thought matters...

That's my point. These people fall for this because they don't think critically. They want to believe, no matter how absurd the "product". Politicians are huckster because it works. If it didn't, they would be honest, but that's not what the voters want. They want tax cuts and entitlements. Those who promises those things, regardless of their real intent, will win. That is not the fault of the huckster. Adam and Eve were sinners, not victims. I say let the devil run loose. He can't do a thing without our help. Resisting temptation is our responsibility and nobody else's. And it is our responsibility to teach our children to resist. Don't ever expect the hucksters to "police themselves". And don't think for a second that legislation against tempting people will ever work. Critical thinking is indeed the key, but conditioned reflex is more likely to rule the day.

Re:oh geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820435)

Geller does not claim to be a magician, he claims to actually posses mental powers. While many of us know this is silly, many people believe it, and are victimized because of it.
I possess mental powers. In fact, I just bent your mom over using only my mind. Subsequently, I used your post to convince her not to feel victimized.

Re:oh geez (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820719)

While many of us know this is silly, many people believe it, and are victimized because of it.

I have a question: Does this statement apply to religion?

If not, why not?

Does your explanation of "why not" apply to Geller, also?

Obviously... (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819727)

he should have seen that one coming.

Re:Obviously... (5, Funny)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819769)

Apparantly not. From the article...

Geller, who lives in London, referred calls to his Philadelphia lawyer, Richard Winelander, who conceded that Geller probably didn't foresee the firestorm his lawsuit would inspire.
We're stilling waiting for the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."

Re:Obviously... (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819855)

We're stilling waiting for the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."

      IMO that wouldn't mean shit. I personally am waiting for the one that says: "Psychic asked to stop buying lottery tickets".

Re:Obviously... (3, Insightful)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819947)

For some reason, the casinos continue to allow psychics to gamble on their premises.

Well, we know how gullible the casinos are - a stroll down the Vegas strip is proof of that.

Re:Obviously... (2, Informative)

PenGun (794213) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820245)

But John Carmack may NOT play Blackjack in Vegas.

Re:Obviously... (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820417)

Why can't Carmack gamble? Isn't he the video games guy?

In truth, I wouldn't want Geller anywhere near a craps table. Despite his claims to the contrary, he is a talented magician who has some skill at controlling the throw of the dice.

Indeed, one "psychic experiment" had him actually touching and throwing the dice while he predicted the outcome. Of course, they found that he could predict the outcome better than chance would predict. Well, duh! Next they're going to tell us is that he can make two chrome rings suddenly join together, or make a bird fly out of a hankerchief.

Re:Obviously... (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820743)

Just throw the whole message part in the Google, you can do that ... right? John Carmack is orders of magnitude more dangerous to the casinos than that fool will ever be.

Re:Obviously... (2, Funny)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820757)

We're stilling waiting for the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."

If I was a psychic, why would I stop at one?

"Psychic wins three different kinds of lotteries in three separate states, as well as substantial bets on horse races. Psychic gently asked to knock it the fuck off and let somebody else win something for a change."

Re:Obviously... (2, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819793)

I know you were shooting for funny, but --IIRC-- his big thing was using the power of the mind (through ESP) to modify objects w/o directly touching or manipulating them, not prophesy or prediction.

I thought he (and ESP) pretty much dwindled in popularity to Art Bell's Show [coasttocoastam.com]* and maybe a few paranormal conventions here and there.

* before anyone screams, yes I know Mr. Bell has recently retired (again) and no I'm not bagging on it - AAMOF I fall asleep to it once in awhile... call it a guilty pleasure.

/P

Re:Obviously... (1, Informative)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819909)

Although utensil abuse is certainly his trademark, Geller's act also includes mind reading (such as drawing duplication) and psychic viewing. He's even predicted the outcoming of elections!

The Geller Curse (1)

evil agent (918566) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819935)

Apparently, he does also make predictions. From Geller's Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:

Geller is well-known for his sports predictions. However, Uri Geller sceptic James Randi and British Tabloid The Sun (among others), have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose.

Re:Obviously... (0)

Maniakes (216039) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819941)

He bends copyright laws with the power of his mind.

The first step is to realize that there is no intellection property, and it is you that bends.

Re:Obviously... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820709)

If you're going to make a lame joke, at least get the context right. Geller is not sham psychic. He's a sham psychokinetic [wikipedia.org].

What's good for the goose... (5, Interesting)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819815)

Abuse of the DMCA through fraudulent takedown notices should result in no less of a penalty than an actual violation of copyright. If a copyright owner can collect $150K per instance of copyright violation, then someone who fraudulently claims copyright on an item they do not in fact have a copyright on should be up against the same penalty.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Interesting)

Rodyland (947093) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819895)

They do mention in the article:

"The trick is that you are breaking the law when you knowingly send notices for videos that you don't hold the copyrights," Reyes said. "It's a good solution."

Problem is, someone has to take them to court. Can you see YouTube standing up for your fair-use rights in the face of a takedown notice? Me either. And unless there are monetary penalties (can anyone point to some DMCA-abuse or takedown-notice-abuse cases that have been successfully fought? And resulted significant monetary penalties?) it's still going to be a case of the guy with the deepest pockets winning.

Re:What's good for the goose... (4, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819951)

YouTube can't defend a user's legal rights or they stop being covered in the law as a "safe harbor." Once they lose their neutrality their liability goes through the roof.

Re:What's good for the goose... (5, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820173)

Yes, but YouTube also doesn't follow the provisions of the law that say that if the poster of the material reply's back with a statement claiming ownership and authoritative information about who they are that will allow the claimer of copyright to sue then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained. In fact NONE of the ISP's follow this second provision of the law and I haven't seen one that once provided this lawfull statement will repost the material. If someone like the victim here hired a lawyer and sued YouTube for violation of the safeharbor rules then there would be posted procedures for waiving the DCMA notice.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820367)

I can't argue too much on that basis, though it's somewhat understandable since a) these ISPs typically make users "sign" agreements that basically say YouTube (or whomever) can pull their content whenever they feel like it (it just happens that they "feel like it" when someone sends them a DMCA notice) and b) they have every reason to be scared that some RIAA/MPAA asshat will tie them, and their financial resources, up in court for years and little reason to fear the same from their users.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820857)

emphasis mine:

then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained.
Not must, but rather, is allowed to. What's the gain for YouTube to repost the file? Marginal at best. What's the risk to them? Potentially huge, if successful lawsuits end up eroding their pageviews because people are afraid to post files.

Most of the time, a DMCA notice results in the material being taken down, no lawsuit occurs. A string of successful suits against YouTube posters is bad publicity. he fact that copyrighted material is available on YouTube (albeit for a short time) is good for YouTube, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by allowing lawsuits about material they've allowed to be posted to actually hit the courts.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820661)

YouTube can't defend a user's legal rights or they stop being covered in the law as a "safe harbor." Once they lose their neutrality their liability goes through the roof.

They aren't being "neutral"; they're assuming the user is guilty.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820119)

YouTube doesn't have to do anything. They can continue to follow the law and respond to the takedowns as they always have. Then the actual copyright holder can sue whoever issued the fraudulent takedown notice. Back when Viacom was blanketing YouTube with takedown notices, many of which were for material they didn't own, think of the billions of dollars that could have been siphoned from that company. Attorney's salivate over that kind of thing.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820197)

Considering that if you own the copyright and someone claims they own the copyright and interferes in your business they have violated your copyright I would say you CAN sue for $150k, and there is also probably an additional tort for the interference with your business relationship with your hosting provider.

What you are really saying is that you wish someone would take someone to court for a false DCMA notice and win a large judgement, thus setting a public precedent that will scare others into not abusing the safe harbor provisions of the DCMA.

And again... (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819829)

Nobody would've cared 'bout the clip if Mr. Geller didn't make it popular this way...

Re:And again... (2, Insightful)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820275)

Similarly, nobody would remember Geller exists if he didn't do idiotic things like this from time to time.
He's an attention whore, plain and simple, and these lawsuits are doing exactly what he's hoping they will.

If you support copyright law in any respect... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819849)

...you must necessarily support Uri Geller.

Personally, I don't think copy rights have any basis in reality besides being the product of brute force-based threats; if you do support the concept of copy rights, however, you cannot oppose Uri Geller's stance and remain consistent.

Re:If you support copyright law in any respect... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819975)

yes, yes you can. what Uri Geller is doing is abusing the copyright system, you can support copyrights in general and know at the same time the guy is not using the system right.

Personally, I don't think copy rights have any basis in reality besides being the product of brute force-based threats
if that is your opinion, then I suppose you don't think the GPL has any basis in reality either. copyrights are supposed to be used to prevent leaching of an innovative company by those that don't do any work to improve the idea. this is unfortunately not how it is used. copyrights as they are today are largely used as weapons to destroy any competition and that is very very bad.

Re:If you support copyright law in any respect... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819977)

..you must necessarily support Uri Geller. ...you cannot oppose Uri Geller's stance and remain consistent.
That just isn't true. This isn't "if you support free speech you must allow Larry Flint". There's also the minor quibble as to who actually owns the copyrights, if anyone. Abusing the DMCA to purge something unflattering is not the same thing as being a legitimate copyright holder excersising their rights. I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for a supposed copyright by a participant in a public event.

Re:If you support copyright law in any respect... (4, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819995)

Oh, bullshit. If he actually owned the copyright, could demonsrate said ownership and evade the issue of "fair use," THEN I (a supporter of copyright in principle, but a believer that current law is way out of whack) would support Uri Geller. Since I believe that even if he does own the copyright in question, an 8-second clip being used as a demonstration of a hypothesis is, by definition, "fair use," I can believe in copyright and still call Geller out as a douche who is attempting to use misinterpreted (being generous) copyright law as a hammer against his critics.

Re:If you support copyright law in any respect... (4, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820019)

No I mustn't. I can support fair use of small clips for things such as bonafide criticism of a performance. It is completely consistent with my stance on copyright to deride Geller's use of DMCA to muzzle those who would expose his methods. The case in point concerns 8 SECONDS of video. I call that fair use, consistent with my support of copyright law.

Just because you say it's so, don't make it so.

Mod parent down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820073)

An AC expressed an unorthodox opinion which generated responses, so please bury it.

Mission accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820455)

(stands on aircraft carrier, proudly)

Completely censor someone on the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819865)

Really? I'd like to see that trick. One email would prevent me from using any email account, newsgroups, web sites, IM, VPNs, etc.?

Re:Completely censor someone on the internet? (3, Funny)

Kesch (943326) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819971)

From: TheBoss@itatlanbistro.org
To: HammerHank@shadybar.com

I need to have someone's lines cut, ...permanently.

Geller (2, Insightful)

gradster79 (878963) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819907)

I suppose this is a bit of a shallow comment, but I love the Internet because when people do abusive things like Uri Geller and his unwarranted Youtube video removals, mass media will never/barely cover it. However the masses of the internet can show everyone what a tool Geller and others really are.

What a surprise... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19819927)

A Jew manipulating the law for his own financial benefit.

One Solution (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819933)

One solution that exists in the RIAA versus filesharer cases is that the RIAA has to provide a copyright registration certificate proving ownership of a song before they can proceed in court. Internet takedown notices should also require a certificate of copyright registration to accompany them. This one small step alone would likely stop 98% of the takedowns requested. While copyright itself does not require registration, if you don't care enough to register it, you shouldn't care enough to try to take it down afterwards.

Re:One Solution (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819993)

U.S. copyright law, as of 1979, does not require a work to be registered in order to be copyrighted. It doesn't even have to have a copyright notification on it. Any work is copyrighted from the moment of creation. hence, this post of mine is copyrighted. Your kid's kindergarten fingerpainting is copyrighted. If you walk down the street and whistle a tune that you made up on the spot, it's copyrighted. So, no certification to show.

I'm not saying this is good, but that's the current law.

Re:One Solution (1)

dex22 (239643) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820145)

However, the DMCA *does* require that copyright be registered with the Library of Congress. If it is not explicitly registered, you may not invoke the DMCA to protect your copyrighted work.

Re:One Solution (1)

tmarthal (998456) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820021)

If you read the article, even having the copyright to the song doesn't make them the copyright holders. For instance, playing the "Electric Slide" at a wedding and having everyone dance to it: who owns the copyright to the dance performance? The person/corp that owns the song rights? They touch upon this exact case in the article.

I am sure that Uri has certificates to prove his copyrights to his work... the problem is that his work is 8 seconds out of the 13 minute video. How can the content provider know what part, if any, the hosted video corresponds to the 'certificate of copyright'? Here's a hint: they don't.

Re:One Solution (3, Insightful)

nsayer (86181) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820317)

While copyright itself does not require registration, if you don't care enough to register it, you shouldn't care enough to try to take it down afterwards.

I call bullshit.

I recorded a video of my cat [youtube.com] a while ago and posted it to YouTube. Copies of it have sprouted up far and wide, uploaded to YouTube and Google Video and all sorts of other places. It got so bad that someone started sending around a bogus e-mail [snopes.com] with the video attached.

It's just a cat flushing the toilet, right? Why should I care?

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.

I do agree that those who abuse the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and send bogus take-down notices need to be walloped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Re:One Solution (1)

Aneurysm (680045) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820453)

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit...
Ummm, dude, shouldn't that be the cat's work. Afterall, it's intolerable someone take credit for what the cat was doing....

Re:One Solution (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820557)

The cat didn't hold the camera. Or post the video to YouTube, for that matter.

Re:One Solution (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820865)

The cat didn't hold the camera. Or post the video to YouTube, for that matter.

Same attitude as those record company assholes. What about the artists' rights?

Re:One Solution (1, Funny)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820537)

Damn you! Do you realize how many times that has shown up in my inbox! It's your fault!

Re:One Solution (2, Funny)

jesdynf (42915) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820639)

Err. So what you're telling me is that there's a political position I can take that would make you less likely to post videos of your cat flushing the toilet to YouTube.

Wow. Gosh. Is it Christmas already?

Re:One Solution (1)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820939)

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work.

So, register your copyright before you publish. If you don't care enough about your work to take some ELEMENTARY steps to protect it, you are asking for trouble.

Well... (2, Interesting)

Ekhymosis (949557) | more than 6 years ago | (#19819957)

Looks like instead of the spoon, it's Uri that will be bent. Too bad he won't go to jail, I'd like to see him 'bend' out of that one =)

Re:Well... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820667)

Too bad he won't go to jail, I'd like to see him 'bend' out of that one =)

Or even better, not managing that, and having to bend over.

Well, what do you expect? (3, Interesting)

DGolden (17848) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820061)

Copyright law is pretty much designed to cause this sort of idiocy.

Re the ease of censoring on the net- It is quite scary how easily controlled most people's internet access (including my own, really) could be. People often think the internet is this robust, uncensorable system, because of old stories about being "designed to withstand a nuclear attack" and all that. That kind of applied when most network nodes were in universities and research labs, who were owner/operators of routing nodes with peering agreements with eachother. Nowadays, the vast majority of people on the internet are "edge nodes", connected to a single corporate ISP. So it's basically degenerated to a star/tree topology at the "home" level. No longer resistant to control, in fact facilitating control by establishing choke points. Blind, complacent faith in the "power" of the internet to "interpret censorship as damage and route around it" as the adage used to go, when that power is being neutered further with each upgrade cycle and your own only routing consists of sending stuff upstream on your sole connection to your sole ISP, is probably not a good idea. What can one do? Learn about wireless mesh networking fast I guess...

Re:Well, what do you expect? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820329)

What can one do? Learn about wireless mesh networking fast I guess...
Yeah right, and risk getting sent to jail? Just search Google or Slashdot for all the wireless arrest stories.

It's kinda risky to use wireless mesh networks because it's now a federal pound-me-in-the-ass offense to use an AP that you are not authorized to. What is to keep someone from setting up an open AP and then later reporting everyone as illegally accessing it? Totally stupid, I know.

Not about money (2, Informative)

aysa (452184) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820115)

He is using copyright as an excuse, he is not interested in distributing the video himself. He was just caught cheating in front of the camera and wants to clean all evidence.

James Randi! (4, Informative)

sdhoigt (1095451) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820273)

Excellent, I have a new hero! James Randi!!

James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff (Faith Healer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&mode=re lated&search= [youtube.com]

James Randi exposes James Hydrick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc&mode=re lated&search= [youtube.com]

There are many, many more debunkings (sp?) by this fine man. Just search YouTube for 'James Randi'.

SD

Fair Use to me (3, Interesting)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820307)

It also turned out that Geller owned no more than eight seconds of the 13 minutes of video, according to Geller's own court filings.

IANAL by I know people are allowed to copy a small percentage for fair use. 8 seconds in 13 minutes sounds like it would fall within that margin.

Uri Gellar is a douchebag... (2, Insightful)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820337)

To be honest, it sounds like it's immature, but I simply cannot think of a better term to describe him that douchebag. This assclown goes back to the 1970's when he claimed he could bend spoons, keys and such with his mind. He claimed he could see things and do all other kinds of stuff. It's been debunked to death. Despite the fact that he was a good enough conman to get some scientists to even become intrigued. This analwart's stupid antics have been caught on take, in the act and yet somehow he can still make money on this.

If he did this as a legitimate illusionist, then it would be fine, but he doesn't. And the reason is that he can't actually do magic illusions well enough to make money that way. So he has to use "Volume 1 of brutally simple illusions for completely incompetent idiots." And he commonly resorts to using the legal system to attempt to defend himself. Even if you have a belief in psychics (which I don't)... it's hard not to at least say *this* ratscrotum ain't one of them. Seriously.. He's just shameless and that's why he's still around.

A lot of people have been made fools of by this guy. I credit James Randi with doing the most to assure Uri doesn't make too much money with his bullshit.


This cartoon pretty much sums up how he gets away so long: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=14 [depletedcranium.com]

Fraud (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820359)

He unsuccessfully sued longtime nemesis James "Amazing" Randi at least three times for defamation, stemming from Randi's own efforts to unmask Geller as a fraud, and lost several other cases lodged against his critics throughout the years.

I find it funny when the term fraud and magic are in the same sentence. I might be a little fuzzy on the exact legal definition of fraud. But people know magic is fake, and that it's an illusion done for entertainment. No magician is fraudulent unless he is specifically saying "yes I am REALLY doing this, not faking it" even then people would see it as part of the gimmick.

I thought fraud was designed for people who are trying to do something counter to what they said, when no concept of "for entertainment purposes" is implied.

Re:Fraud (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820763)

You must not be familiar with Uri Geller, but he claims he can really do this stuff without any magician styled tricks. That's why people like Randi go after him, because he is a fraud. (Damn, now he's going to sue ME for defamation!)

Re:Fraud (4, Insightful)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820767)

That's all fine and well, but IIRC Randi wasn't suing him for fraud, but trying prevent people from becoming mindless followers of Randi and buying into his hokey pseudo-religion. Secondly, it is debatable whether or not "people know magic is fake". Crossing Over, Faith Healers, Scientology, or most aspects of religion that people seem to get most caught up in, altogether garner the support and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people. Randi is more or less concerned with protecting these damned fools from themselves, or at least providing them with an rational alternative from which they can choose.

If you've ever followed the details regarding incidents involving Geller that have happened over the past few decades you'd realize how what he does can be a dangerous thing.

Re:Fraud (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820907)

No magician is fraudulent unless he is specifically saying "yes I am REALLY doing this, not faking it"

And that's what Geller does, which is why people debunk him. David Copperfield doesn't pretend he's really got paranormal powers, so no one gets mad at him.

Who is this guy? (3, Funny)

RelliK (4466) | more than 6 years ago | (#19820513)

Never heard of this guy before. What I know now is:

- he bends metal
- he is annoying
- he is con-artist ... wait, I know! He is Bender!

Mystically Bending Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19820541)

"Uri Geller Accused of Bending Copyright Law"

See? He DOES have power...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...